Buscar contratos adjudicados y firmados (DGCP)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the API fetches multiple pages and filters locally by termino/codigo/institucion/proveedor, which tells the agent that result completeness depends on the paginas argument — context no annotation supplies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose and payoff, then the local-filtering caveat, then a compact arg list. Every line carries information; only the 'Campos VERIFICADOS' aside is slight filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a fully-optional, read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description adds the one thing the schema cannot: that filtering is client-side across a bounded page scan. It hints at returnable fields (montos, formas de pago, fechas) even without an output schema. Adequate, with only the exact result shape left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the argument names ('Args: termino, codigo_proceso, institucion...') without adding format, default, or interaction semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Consulta) and resource (contratos firmados y adjudicados por instituciones del Estado dominicano), and the resource noun alone distinguishes it from the licitaciones/ofertas/proveedores siblings. The parenthetical API endpoint reference (/contratos) reinforces the scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description frames the payoff ('permite saber quien gano licitaciones anteriores, los montos...') which implies use cases, but never states when to pick this over dgcp_buscar_licitaciones or dgcp_buscar_ofertas, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable, not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.